The second book in the new Baptist Heritage Series has just been published. This is a reprint of Abraham Booth’s An Apology for the Baptists, which is a clear and persuasive answer to those who advocated an open communion position in the eighteenth century. The introduction to the book gives some helpful contextual history and outlines the necessity of such a reprint. The reasons given are…

1. The emphasis Booth places on the scriptural order of faith, baptism, membership of the local church, and participation in the Lord’s Supper. This chain is fundamental to strict Baptist ecclesiology: baptism is the ordinance of initiation, in which believers publicly identify with Christ in his death and resurrection; the Lord’s Supper is, as Booth describes it, the ordinance of ‘nutrition’—believers are spiritually nourished as they feed on Christ by faith, and continually reminded of their union with Christ and their union thereby with fellow church members. Booth is at pains to emphasise that the open communion position divorces baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and is thus without precedent in the entirety of church history. In this matter, strict Baptists and Paedobaptists are in firm agreement: baptism must precede participation in the Lord’s Supper.
2. The irenic spirit in which Booth writes. For all Booth’s concern for the proper scriptural order, he does not demonise or reject all fellowship with other Christian believers, both Baptists holding to an open communion position and Paedobaptists. An accusation often made towards adherents of restricted communion is that they reject all communion and fellowship with other Christians, or suggest through their practice that other Christians are not truly saved. It is to be feared that, sometimes, these accusations are justified by the actions and attitudes of misguided strict communionists. On the contrary, Booth emphasises that strict Baptists can and should have close fellowship both with other Baptists and with Paedobaptists, as they are striving together for the same faith and doctrine. Indeed, Booth defends at some length the practice of allowing Paedobaptists to preach in strict Baptist churches. This has been a consistent feature of strict Baptist practice: William Gadsby, for example, frequently preached to the mixed congregation of Gower Street Chapel, and had fellowship with Independent churches. A parochial, closed-off spirit should never characterise strict Baptists.
3. The need for this defence today. The debate over open and restricted communion is no mere historical or academic issue; rather, it is a pressing one in the modern day. There are many who have grown up in strict Baptist churches who fail to understand the scriptural reasons for their own practice, or harbour misguided notions. In addition, it is promising to see that, with the resurgence of interest in historic and confessional Particular Baptist theology and ecclesiology, more Baptists are discovering and embracing the restricted communion position. We hope that the republication of this work will encourage them that they stand in a strong theological tradition in doing so.

For these reasons, we also recommend this work to our readers.

A Defence of Restricted Communion by Abraham Booth, published by Gospel Standard Trust Publications